Political Musings.
Hmph. So I had a fun weekend with my uncle, aunt, & cousins in Schenectady. There are many things I could say about that- for instance, that Finding Nemo was an excellent movie that deserved to make a lot, or that Champions of Norrath was a fun 2-player game flagrantly done by the people who made Dark Alliance, or even that a fine piano arrangement for Toccata and Fugue exists (heard at the piano recital for my cousins by one of the more advanced students).
But instead I shall hearken back to politics. My uncle, you see, is a fascinating specimen- he & his family are vegetarians who attend a quite liberal mainline church, while also being lawyer/scientists. Quite the Oberlin ideal. Oh, and they think Clinton was a terrible president and think W. Bush is a pretty good guy. Just goes to show that the polit-o-cliche-meter isn't always right.
One comparison of his sticks in my head. I'm afraid it's more apt than I'd like to admit- George W. to Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Both were faced by a war that didn't seem to be going well and was eating up more American lives by the day. Both looked like they couldn't possibly be re-elected in the Spring. Both stood fast and insisted that they were doing the right thing. Lincoln, at least, got re-elected anyway. Truman might be another good example- nobody thought he'd win in 1948, not with him pushing civil rights in an election year and other such foolishness. He stuck to his guns and won. Maybe Americans have a soft spot in their hearts for this kind of consistency.
Bush is bottoming out at the absolutely perfect time (for him). Once we get out of Iraq somewhat come July, at least officially, the Republican's convention will be up soon. They can send some more troops home just before election day. Bush will have weathered the storm and come back stronger and even harder to budge in the polls. I know some candidates who seem to have everything all tied up early on, let down their guard, and then a mess hits two weeks before the election. Jim Florio was a 12 point favorite over Christie Whitman for governor until the last week of the election. Perhaps because it hit at the wrong time, it insured that Florio lost.
This saddens me greatly, because Lincoln would be a heck of a lot better president than Bush, despite some similarities. His first term has been a mitigated disaster, thanks to a Democratic Senate half the time and some other events slowing him down. Lord knows what a second term would mean.
--
One wild card on my musings, though- the Indian elections. I can't admit any special fondness for the BJP party- my impression of them has been that they had a rather strong Hindu Nationalist element in them, and Hinduism being one of the few major religions I have an active disdain for... but I must admit they've done a pretty good job of running the country. India has had something like 7% economic growth for the past 8 or so years, which is incredible. Plus, the Prime Minister seemed to actually be moving towards reconciliation with Pakistan, which is something that sorely needs doing. And yet, somehow, they lost the vote. This is crazy! You can't find a parallel to it in US history. Any time the incumbent has been generating powerful economic growth like that, he's a shoo-in. Reagan in 1984. Eisenhower in 1956. Roosevelt in 1936. All won in landslides. As far as I know, no great scandal or corruption allegations were leveled against the BJP in the waning days of the election.
So what's the moral? Beats me. Maybe voters are just even more random than people think. Maybe nothing.
But instead I shall hearken back to politics. My uncle, you see, is a fascinating specimen- he & his family are vegetarians who attend a quite liberal mainline church, while also being lawyer/scientists. Quite the Oberlin ideal. Oh, and they think Clinton was a terrible president and think W. Bush is a pretty good guy. Just goes to show that the polit-o-cliche-meter isn't always right.
One comparison of his sticks in my head. I'm afraid it's more apt than I'd like to admit- George W. to Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Both were faced by a war that didn't seem to be going well and was eating up more American lives by the day. Both looked like they couldn't possibly be re-elected in the Spring. Both stood fast and insisted that they were doing the right thing. Lincoln, at least, got re-elected anyway. Truman might be another good example- nobody thought he'd win in 1948, not with him pushing civil rights in an election year and other such foolishness. He stuck to his guns and won. Maybe Americans have a soft spot in their hearts for this kind of consistency.
Bush is bottoming out at the absolutely perfect time (for him). Once we get out of Iraq somewhat come July, at least officially, the Republican's convention will be up soon. They can send some more troops home just before election day. Bush will have weathered the storm and come back stronger and even harder to budge in the polls. I know some candidates who seem to have everything all tied up early on, let down their guard, and then a mess hits two weeks before the election. Jim Florio was a 12 point favorite over Christie Whitman for governor until the last week of the election. Perhaps because it hit at the wrong time, it insured that Florio lost.
This saddens me greatly, because Lincoln would be a heck of a lot better president than Bush, despite some similarities. His first term has been a mitigated disaster, thanks to a Democratic Senate half the time and some other events slowing him down. Lord knows what a second term would mean.
--
One wild card on my musings, though- the Indian elections. I can't admit any special fondness for the BJP party- my impression of them has been that they had a rather strong Hindu Nationalist element in them, and Hinduism being one of the few major religions I have an active disdain for... but I must admit they've done a pretty good job of running the country. India has had something like 7% economic growth for the past 8 or so years, which is incredible. Plus, the Prime Minister seemed to actually be moving towards reconciliation with Pakistan, which is something that sorely needs doing. And yet, somehow, they lost the vote. This is crazy! You can't find a parallel to it in US history. Any time the incumbent has been generating powerful economic growth like that, he's a shoo-in. Reagan in 1984. Eisenhower in 1956. Roosevelt in 1936. All won in landslides. As far as I know, no great scandal or corruption allegations were leveled against the BJP in the waning days of the election.
So what's the moral? Beats me. Maybe voters are just even more random than people think. Maybe nothing.